National Recovery Systems v. Wonder

Decision Date28 February 1983
Citation462 N.Y.S.2d 107,118 Misc.2d 1098
PartiesNATIONAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, as Assignee, Plaintiff, v. Ed WONDER a/k/a Ed Wnorowski, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM

ELI WAGER, Justice.

In this action by an assignee to recover on defendant's indebtedness to Caesar's Palace, a gambling casino located in Las Vegas, Nevada, the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (by notice of motion denominated a motion for summary judgment) upon the ground that gambling debts are unenforceable.

The complaint alleges as a first cause of action that Caesar's Palace lent the defendant $25,000.00 on or about May 26, 1976 which has not been repaid; as a second cause of action it alleges that defendant signed various checks totalling $25,000.00 and that he has refused to make payment on such checks; as a third cause of action it alleges that defendant fraudulently agreed that he had that amount on deposit in his bank; and, as a fourth cause of action, the pleading alleges breach of contract. The answer contains general denials and alleges failure to state a cause of action, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the obligation sued upon is "void on its face."

With respect to defendant's allegation that the debt is unenforceable, defendant has submitted copies of the checks executed by him. But he has also annexed a copy of plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars which states,inter alia, that the $25,000.00 credit extended to defendant by Caesar's Palace was for "payment for airline round-trip tickets, his room and board, food, beverages and tips, all at the Assignor's premises and hotel and was further to be used for the purchase of various chips which could be used for gambling purposes or cashed in to obtain legal tender for same." Also annexed to the moving papers is a copy of what appears to be an account rendered by Caesar's Palace which, although almost illegible, contains references to air fare as well as chips. Defendant has not submitted an affidavit executed by him personally and thus he has not denied that some of the monies lent were used for purposes other than gambling. His attorney's statement in his affirmation that "it is clear that the money was advanced for gambling purposes, and plaintiff's statements to the contrary are obvious heresay" (sic) is without probative value (DiFalco, Field & Lomenzo v. Newburgh Dyeing Corp., 81 A.D.2d 560, 438 N.Y.S.2d 334).

Although gambling in legalized and appropriately supervised forms is not against this state's public policy and a gambling debt may be enforced here if it was validly contracted in another jurisdiction and is enforceable there (Aspinall's Club Limited v. Aryeh, 86 A.D.2d 428, 450 N.Y.S.2d 199; see also Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden, 15 N.Y.2d 9, 254 N.Y.S.2d 527, 203 N.E.2d 210), it appears that such debts are not enforceable in Nevada even though gambling has been legalized in that state (see National Recovery Systems v. Ornstein, 541 F.Supp. 1131 [E.D.Pa.1982]; Sandler v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, etc., 96 Nev. 622, 614 P.2d 10 [Nev.1980]; Sea Air...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • National Recovery Systems v. Mazzei
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1984
    ...that money was advanced solely for the purpose of gambling and not for some other legitimate purpose (National Recovery Systems v. Wonder, 118 Misc.2d 1098, 462 N.Y.S.2d 107; see e.g., Wolpert v. Knight, 74 Nev. 322, 330 P.2d 1023; Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States, 485 F.Supp. 926, af......
  • National Recovery Systems v. Zemnovitch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 18, 1998
    ...123 Misc.2d 780, 781, 475 N.Y.S.2d 208, citing Aspinall's Club v. Aryeh, 86 A.D.2d 428, 450 N.Y.S.2d 199; National Recovery Systems v. Wonder, 118 Misc.2d 1098, 462 N.Y.S.2d 107). The plaintiff's papers were insufficient to demonstrate that the "markers" signed by the defendant are enforcea......
  • Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. v. Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1989
    ...203 N.E.2d 210 (1964); National Recovery Systems v. Mazzei, 123 Misc.2d 780, 475 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1984); National Recovery Systems v. Wonder, 118 Misc.2d 1098, 462 N.Y.S.2d 107 (1983). More specifically, the Defendant maintains that Plaintiff could not enforce its claim, in regard to the two c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT